Thursday, April 02, 2009

Bigger Rooms?

The last thing you want in terms of political optics, is a half empty room for an event. It's for that reason, that operatives tend to book conservatively. However, there has been one reoccurring theme since Ignatieff took the helm, that of "packed", "overflow", "waiting lists", everywhere he appears, with no exception that I can find.

Last night's Liberal fundraiser was no different:

Ignatieff Liberals were elated that more than 1,100 Liberals – more than half of them paying $1,000 for elite party membership and a chance to hobnob with the leader at a pre-dinner cocktail party – packed the room, with another 100 on the waiting list.

The tally for last night is estimated at over ONE MILLION. To put that figure into perspective, in one day, the Liberals have raised more for the 2nd quarter of this year, than they did the entire period last year. The fact we raised so much is even more impressive (if that's possible), when you consider another six figures was waiting to get in, if not for space limitation.

By all accounts, first quarter fundraising was up considerably. It would appear the second quarter is starting nicely. Attack away bottom feeders...

If that were true, then why are we only seeing this now? I don't hear anyone mentioning where, and what city, the vast majority of Conservative money pours in from. Strange that. Also, the Libs just had a fundraiser in BC that raised 200000, and the week before they put over 1000 in a room, at a mere 10 bucks a pop in Quebec.

Just to add, smaller fundraisers have done well, not to mention a decided uptick in small donations from the VF. It ain't just big donors, not that there's anything wrong with that.

I must say too, I find it "more about the messenger", that anyone could find fault, or try and downplay a one night show that raised more than we normally do in an entire quarter. It's sort of like the people who complain we should be 40 plus in the polls already (I guess they missed the last election), to try and make the recent spate of polls seem weaker than they really are. Stating the obvious isn't cheerleading, it's calling a spade a spade. Weird place, this blogosphere sometimes...

Steve, it's not exactly a secret that the Conservatives have been far more successful at small donations. They, like the Republicans and Democrats, have successfully mobilized their base, and that base is where you get those donations.

You ask why you're "only seeing this now?" Well, I suppose that depends on why the people who can pay a thousand dollars a head weren't as generous before. I couldn't presume to guess why they might have been dissuaded from this kind of generosity.

(You're the one "calling a spade a spade".)

I'm not sure why you're taking shots at "messengers" either, Steve. I've been making the case for liberalism online, with a small "l" or otherwise, far longer than you've known what a blog is. I'm no conservative concern troll, and became interested in the Liberal party precisely because it can be, well, liberal.

But I've also seen that the big "L" and the little "l" aren't necessarily related. They may be. They may not be. But it's a valid question, and your party's success at connecting with people who can pay a thousand dollars a plate is completely irrelevant to answering it.

(After all, the Liberal Democrats have always been good at that. But nobody would call them "liberal".)

No, you resolve that question by looking at whether or not the party can connect with the people who take its values most seriously. And, judging by that policy-free, renewal-free, election-free convention you've got coming up, and the continuing questions about how and whether that mysterious un-examined policy will differ from Harper's, I'd say that connection might be looking a bit frayed.